Surya Kant, J.

Two Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 2326 of 2011 and 128 of 2012 are being disposed of by this common order as both the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 03.08.2011 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellants' writ petitions challenging the order dated 21.08.1990 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from LPA No. 2326 of 2011.

2. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellants were in continuous occupation of the subjectland as tenants and rightfully 'purchased' it on 06.09.1967 under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953? If so, whether the purchase order is binding on the State of Haryana?, and if not, whether the 'allotment' of surplus land by the State Government in favour of respondent No. 5 [an unsettled tenant] under the provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 is valid?

3. The controversy in this case revolves around the competing claims between the alleged tenants of the land who had 'purchased' it vis-a-vis the unsettled tenants to whom the said land was allotted by the State. The brief facts are to t